User talk:O mnp11

Your edits

Hello. I really don't want us to get into an edit war. The sources I provide to Yemeni media are just as reliable as pro-Saudi news and that should not be a reason to remove my edits. If it is a reason, then you are showing complete bias. Take the end of the campaign as an example. Saudi media reported that it was a success and every single western media reported it like that. Not a single one highlighted that in fact, none of the original goals were met. ArabianWonders (talk) 08:50, 23 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I never meant it to be an edit war. If you consider Reuters, AP, BBC and CNN pro-Saudi media, I don't know what is left. Had I wanted to use pro-Saudi media, I would have quoted AAWSAT and Arab News and other shitty outlets.

BBC and CNN are pro-Saudi. Look at the announcement Saudi made that they killed dozens of troops. That was echoed everywhere simply because Saudi said it. I am getting tired of seeing you remove my edits because they are unreliable and keep Saudi claims as they are. The officials at the Yemeni news reported civilian casualties. It is within their rights to do so and within my rights to add that information to the article. The articles cite health officials and they have pictures. If you remove it one more time I will have to bring this to an admin's attentions so please don't. If you want to remove something that was later reverted, try talking to the user instead of reverting it. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:25, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding your contributions to the article on the 2015 military intervention in Yemen

Please do not add Saudi Arabia's preposterous claims to the article as we're still discussing whether or not we should include such claims in the talk page. Also, please refrain from using terms such as "terrorists" in the article as they would make the article extremely biased and propagandist. Thanks. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 19:47, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not making any claims. Everything I have put is CITED.

Please stop your disruptive editing in the "2015 military intervention in Yemen" article or you will be reported to the admins

Your inclusion of Saudi Arabia's casualty claims in the article was removed as per Wikipedia's BRD policy: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

There's already a discussion in the talk page regarding the inclusion of casualty claims that are thought to be biased, propagandist, and unreliable. No consensus has been established on the inclusion of either Saudi or Houthi/Yemeni casualty claims by reason of their propagandist nature and unreliability. Until the discussion reaches a consensus, it is best to avoid adding Saudi Arabia's claim of killing over 500 Houthi fighters, otherwise your edits would be regarded as disruptive.

Thanks. --Nadia (Kutsuit) (talk) 14:31, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Reuters Iran statement.

I read the Reuters page and "in it's highest form of involvement in the Arabian world" is merely the authors view and shouldn't be reported as a fact. I suggest you edit it to saying "in what seems to be" or "allegedly" to clarify it. ArabianWonders (talk) 20:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@ArabianWonders read it again. It says: "in the most explicit acknowledgment of intervention" not "in the highest form of intervention."O mnp11 (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]